Hi, I think you make an important point about attendance at both Council meeting and for the monthly council calls. While I don't generally +1 nominations, though I did make an exception for Tapani, thinking of it more as a second than another +1 and doing it more to encourage him to stay on in a job that often goes unappreciated. But I am one who sees this practice as acceptable. For many of our member/participants, it is a time when they get to give their opinions beyond just a vote. I know that it has not stopped me from encouraging others to run, in fact offering to nominate some who who have not yet been nominated. And I see no evidence that it stops anyone from coming forward. I see it as very similar to a form of informal polling before the election. Yet another democratic activity. And I hope that people do not feel a need to stifle their participation even if it is just a +1. avri On 03-Aug-16 10:44, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Having served on council now for two years, I think we should consider > better how we want to run these elections. DO people out there really > understand the work we do on council? How do we want our council > members to act? How do we want them to discuss issues on our monthly > policy calls? How collaborative should the decision making be? How > do we do succession planning and mentoring? These are issues that are > fundamentally important in my view, and should be discussed during the > campaign, not relegated to nominee's statements. > > I agree with Niels and Milton that if expressions of support are > suppressing candidates from coming forward, we need a rule against > it. We desperately need more people to run....there was only one > contested seat the last time I ran, when gender balance and regional > balance were taken into consideration. > > Best, > > Stephanie > > > On 2016-08-03 10:24, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote: >> Dear Milton. >> >> I agree that this is a very fine procedural point, that should be >> managed clearly by the people responsible for the process, from the >> first mail on, so as to allow for others to consider participating. >> Maybe it should even become a written rule of internal netiquette. >> >> But in the meantime, coming from a Hyperdemocratic and >> Hyper-freedom-of-expression rights country like Costa Rica (and the >> re-election being a possibility for some incumbents) I done´t see >> anything wrong in feeling the temperature of the room early on as a >> way to recognise how hard some of them have worked in the past. We >> might have chosen the wrong place to make this type of comments, but >> space should be available for making them in the list anyhow. Maybe >> just under a different heading, like “I don´t like the re-election of >> incumbents” for example. >> >> Now, do we have an explicit rule as suggested by Niels and you? How >> and where do we express our support for that rule? Should we draw a >> redline and asked for a renewed call for the election process with >> the new rule and forget the past? Lets be practical and move forward >> ASAP. >> >> Best >> >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> +506 8837 7176 >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) >> On 3 Aug 2016, at 8:11, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >>> I second Niels's views. I have refrained from expressing any opinion >>> about the nominations until the nominations are closed and we are >>> discussing candidate statements. I have always done so. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >>>> Niels ten Oever >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:30 AM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: +1's and support >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal of >>>> mutual support >>>> and camaraderie. I have the feeling that sometimes it is drowning >>>> out other >>>> discussions about content on the list. >>>> >>>> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so the >>>> candidates >>>> need your support is even more then. >>>> >>>> I'm greatly looking forward to the statements of the candidates. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Niels ten Oever >>>> Head of Digital >>>> >>>> Article 19 >>>> www.article19.org >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus